3 ms·

Quoting the article: > When a person uses a room in a house to engage in illegal or just terrible activity, we don’t call on the electric company to cut off th

Quoting the article: > When a person uses a room in a house to engage in illegal or just terrible activity, we don’t call on the electric company to cut off the light and heat to the entire house, or the post office to stop delivering mail. We know that this will backfire in the long run. Instead, we go after the bad guys themselves and hold them accountable. Although your points are valid in some sense, I don’t see how they respond to any claims of the article.

jmyeet 3y ago
That's fine when you have the jurisdiction for doing that. In your example, there is a house with people in it doing something illegal. That's within the realm of law enforcements and courts. A better example is robocall spam. Most of it comes from overseas. That is incredibly difficult to do about directly. The only effective way to go after it is with the exchanges that transmit and essentially "launder" the spam traffic, cutting them off if necessary. KiwiFarms openly engages in and faciclitates harassment and doxxing. It's absolutely the right thing to do to limit its reach and availability.
- ibizaman 3y ago
  Actually robocalls are a good example too where we don’t need to remove our privacy for less scam calls. Admittedly, allowing others to listen in to all calls is a solution, but what a trade off it is to allow that. I learned recently about SnorCall [1] which is IMO a pretty ingenious solution to the problem. The idea is to have a bunch a phone numbers allocated to listening on incoming calls. They record what they listen to and an algorithm will do some speech to text translation then another categorises the call as spam or not. These calls have a huge amount of variation and anyway the incoming number can be spoofed so that number is not interesting. The ingenious part is that often scams will have a call to action and then will give a number to call back. And that number is not spoofed since a real person must answer. And the tests show that a lot of scams actually use the same call back number, making it it easier on law enforcements to act upon those registering that phone number. Anyway, my point is just that we should try to think outside the box before accepting to decrease our privacy. We usually have a very hard time to get it back. https://www.gadgetany.com/news/snorcall-ai-powered-tool-to-protect-you-from-robocall-scams/?amp=1 https://www.gadgetany.com/news/snorcall-ai-powered-tool-to-p... (not a very good link but I can’t find my origins link anymore)
- ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
  >That's fine when you have the jurisdiction for doing that KF operates in the USA. If there was anything illegal on there it would have been taken down by the courts.

jmyeet 3y ago

That's fine when you have the jurisdiction for doing that. In your example, there is a house with people in it doing something illegal. That's within the realm of law enforcements and courts. A better example is robocall spam. Most of it comes from overseas. That is incredibly difficult to do about directly. The only effective way to go after it is with the exchanges that transmit and essentially "launder" the spam traffic, cutting them off if necessary. KiwiFarms openly engages in and faciclitates harassment and doxxing. It's absolutely the right thing to do to limit its reach and availability.

ibizaman 3y ago
Actually robocalls are a good example too where we don’t need to remove our privacy for less scam calls. Admittedly, allowing others to listen in to all calls is a solution, but what a trade off it is to allow that. I learned recently about SnorCall [1] which is IMO a pretty ingenious solution to the problem. The idea is to have a bunch a phone numbers allocated to listening on incoming calls. They record what they listen to and an algorithm will do some speech to text translation then another categorises the call as spam or not. These calls have a huge amount of variation and anyway the incoming number can be spoofed so that number is not interesting. The ingenious part is that often scams will have a call to action and then will give a number to call back. And that number is not spoofed since a real person must answer. And the tests show that a lot of scams actually use the same call back number, making it it easier on law enforcements to act upon those registering that phone number. Anyway, my point is just that we should try to think outside the box before accepting to decrease our privacy. We usually have a very hard time to get it back. https://www.gadgetany.com/news/snorcall-ai-powered-tool-to-protect-you-from-robocall-scams/?amp=1 https://www.gadgetany.com/news/snorcall-ai-powered-tool-to-p... (not a very good link but I can’t find my origins link anymore)
ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
>That's fine when you have the jurisdiction for doing that KF operates in the USA. If there was anything illegal on there it would have been taken down by the courts.